'Personhood' faces N.D. test

Many traditional anti-abortion groups said the sweep of the personhood efforts could detract from their mission. Some fear the inevitable legal fight – because personhood goes much further than any abortion restrictions the court has upheld since the Supreme Court’s Roe vs. Wade ruling in 1973 – could even set the movement back.

Personhood advocates see North Dakota as a chance to change the dynamic. Both sides have poured hundreds of thousands of dollars into advertising. Local Planned Parenthood groups are spearheading opposition. The support of the Catholic bishops, which have helped fund the campaign for Measure 1, has been pivotal.

Advocates of the North Dakota ballot measure say that it would “clarify” that the constitution’s right to life could apply to any part of a human life — including gestation — if the legislature chooses to pass a law along those lines.

Nothing in the law – such as a ban on abortion or Do Not Resuscitate orders for the critically ill – would change immediately if the measure passes. That would require legislation. But abortion rights proponents say if the measure does become part of the state constitution, it would be easier for North Dakota lawmakers to pass such bills. And they don’t doubt they would try. North Dakota is already engaged in a court battle over whether it can ban most abortions after six weeks of pregnancy, one of the most restrictive state laws in the country.

The personhood language “is vague and open to interpretation, “ said Karla Rose Hanson, a spokesperson for North Dakotans Against Measure 1. “We’re concerned that this could lead to government intrusion in a variety of situations,” including abortion, end of life care, or infertility treatments.

A similar debate is underway in Colorado. That proposed constitutional amendment would protect “pregnant women and unborn children by defining ‘person’ and ‘child’ in the Colorado criminal code and the Colorado wrongful death act to include unborn human beings.” The language, focusing on fetal protections in the criminal code, is narrower than the two earlier Personhood USA initiatives that gave a fetus constitutional rights at the moment of conception.

One of its most outspoken proponents is a Colorado woman who was 38 weeks pregnant when a drunk driver hit her car, killing the fetus. The driver was not criminally liable for the death. She hopes the personhood amendment would change that in any such future tragedy.

In addition, Tennessee voters will consider an abortion-related constitutional amendment that only few consider part of the personhood movement. Tennessee voters will be asked whether they want to amend the constitution to specifically say that nothing in it protects the right to an abortion or the funding of an abortion.